The Soul

[steaver]

Circumlocution can be a really good teaching tool. I often employed it in a class when certain students had all the answers even before I taught the questions. I took them in circles until they arrived at the answer of their own volition. How brilliant they were!

When that didn't work out, I tried the other one of reminding them that I may be wrong, but remember, I mark the papers!

Cheers,

Jim

I'll remember that one! :thumbs:

 

[thegospelgeek]

Marcia,

You believe that the soul and spirit are the same. In most verses I agree with you but what about in 1Thes 5:23 and Heb 4:12?

In these two verses it appears that they could be refering to seperate entities. What do you think?

 

[MorganT]

Brother,

There is ample scripture that points to a person (a living soul) having "soul" at the first sign of "life".

There is ZERO scripture stating anything to support any other view that I have seen.

So why is it you have trouble agreeing with the soul being in a man at the first sign of life?

Can you give any other scripture that supports any other possibility?? If not, why reject the scripture that states "God breathed into the nostrals and man became a living soul"?

Without soul you cannot be pyhsically alive!

Jam 2:26For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.

Therefore, If the baby/body is ALIVE it has a SPIRIT/SOUL.


Gid Bless! :jesus:

Jer 1:5 Before I formed you in the belly I knew you; and before you came forth out of the womb I consecrated you, and I ordained you a prophet to the nations.

This says that God knew him before he was even formed.:thumbs:

 

[Jim1999]

So, Morgan, you are equating the creation of Adam with the birth of a child. This means the child is born without sin. Where does original sin enter into the picture? What point in life does it enter the person?

I have a problem with God breathing in the breath of perfect life, the soul, into a corrupt body. Does the corrupt body only come from the man? Then, isn't sin of the soul?

Cheers,

Jim

 

[MorganT]

So, Morgan, you are equating the creation of Adam with the birth of a child. This means the child is born without sin. Where does original sin enter into the picture? What point in life does it enter the person?

I have a problem with God breathing in the breath of perfect life, the soul, into a corrupt body. Does the corrupt body only come from the man? Then, isn't sin of the soul?

Cheers,

Jim

With all due respect Jim, I didnt take any side I just quoted scripture, with that being said which side does scripture take.

 

[Marcia]

Marcia,

You believe that the soul and spirit are the same. In most verses I agree with you but what about in 1Thes 5:23 and Heb 4:12?

In these two verses it appears that they could be refering to seperate entities. What do you think?

I think as with all scripture, it must be compared to other scripture. I think in 1 Thess saying "spirit" and "soul" together is not making them separate things, just an emphasis. Same with Heb 4.12, and I think there it is a parallelism.

Here's a good article that explores this question (excerpt below)
http://sundoulos.com/theological.aspx?in=6

A popular view is that we are made up of three parts (trichotomy), not two. We have two immaterial components—both a soul and a spirit. Usually, these are given different meanings (e.g., "spirit" is our life-principle, and "soul" is the part of a person that relates to God). As seen in the previous discussion, however, these distinctions are not maintained by a comprehensive examination of Scripture. The only verses which seem to support trichotomy are 1 Thess. 5:23 and Heb. 4:12. Read 1 Thess. 5:23, and then apply some hermeneutical principles to it. Is Paul interested in defining the way humans are made up in this context? What is his real concern? If he’s not interested in defining personhood here, and could be using an imprecise expression which connotes wholeness, maybe it would be unwise to take this one verse and make a whole theology out of it—especially when Paul elsewhere uses the terms "spirit" and "soul" interchangeably.

Hebrews 4:12 is considered a secondary support for trichotomy, since the author of Hebrews talks about the "division" of soul and spirit, and this is interpreted to mean that soul and spirit are different things. Read this verse also, and ask some hermeneutical questions of it. Is the language used here literal or figurative? What is the author’s real point? If it’s a poetic and figurative passage, is it wise to build a doctrine out of the language?

Consider the use of balanced terms throughout the verse: living/active, soul/spirit, joints/marrow, thoughts/intentions. Note that these are not meant to be strict opposites in all the other cases; in fact, these are collections of synonyms, used in parallel for poetic emphasis. Also I would point out that the "division" of soul and spirit does not mean they are divided one from another. It means that our lives are penetrated (divided, opened up) by God’s word to the depth of our spiritual selves.

 

[Marcia]

Here is a page of commentaries on Heb 4:12 -- the whole verse but these include comments on the soul vs. spirit issue:

http://www.preceptaustin.org/hebrews_412.htm

No Scripture text ascribes different, distinct substance and functions to the spirit and soul. Trichotomists nevertheless usually propose that spirit is man’s Godward consciousness and soul is his earthward consciousness; however, neither the Greek usage of spirit (pneuma) nor of soul (psuche) sustains that proposition. The nonmaterial part of man does have myriad capacities to respond to God, Satan, and the world’s many stimuli, but it is untenable to arbitrarily separate the spirit from the soul. The two terms are used interchangeably in Scripture (see notes Hebrews 6:19; Hebrews 10:39; 1 Peter 2:11; 2 Peter 2:8). Spirit and soul are familiar and common synonyms that Paul used to emphasize the depth and scope of sanctification. Some suggest that an acceptable translation of this portion of Paul’s prayer could be, “May your spirit, even soul and body,” in which case “spirit” would refer to the whole person, and “soul and body” to the person’s nonmaterial and material parts. References from Paul’s other epistles provide clear evidence that he was a dichotomist (Romans 8:10; 1 Cor. 2:11; 5:3, 5; 7:34; 2 Cor. 7:1; Gal. 6:18; Colossians 2:5; 2 Timothy 4:22).

Some claim [FONT=Times New Roman,Times]Hebrews 4:12 (note)

, “For the word of God is living and active and sharper than any two-edged sword, and piercing as far as the division of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow, and able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart,” supports a trichotomist view of man’s essence because it suggests splitting soul and spirit. But a careful look at the verse’s language refutes that contention. The writer did not say the sword of the Word penetrates a person’s inner being and separates his soul from his spirit. He said only that the sword cuts open the soul and the spirit of the person. He used a second metaphorical expression “piercing … both joints and marrow” to further depict the deep penetration God’s Word makes into the inner person. This verse poses no special difficulty for the dichotomist position. (MacArthur, J. 1 & 2 Thessalonians. Chicago: Moody Press.)

[/FONT]

 

[thegospelgeek]

Consider the use of balanced terms throughout the verse: living/active, soul/spirit, joints/marrow, thoughts/intentions. Note that these are not meant to be strict opposites in all the other cases; in fact, these are collections of synonyms, used in parallel for poetic emphasis. Also I would point out that the "division" of soul and spirit does not mean they are divided one from another. It means that our lives are penetrated (divided, opened up) by God’s word to the depth of our spiritual selves.

I don't have the answer, but I do disagree with the atricle here. the collections are not synonyms but are subsets of the other. Joints are made up of many things, the marrow being a part. Our intents are part of our thoughts, but not all of them. Following that line of reasoning then the Spirit would be part of the Soul, but not it's whole.

I still feel that these verses could possibly leave the door open for soul and spirit being somewhat different.